freeman3 wrote:The question I have is where is the proof that illegal immigration at current levels has a net negative affect on our economy and country as a whole?If you don't KNOW the answer to that question then why be so concerned about it or feel the need to build a wall or more intensively deport people?

In general I think immigration has been a huge positive in this country, especially 2nd generation which has a remarkable success rate in entrepreneurship, science, medicine, business, etc. We do have to ask the question: "how much legal immigration do we want and under what criteria". My answer is much more, and greatly based on practical reasons as they do in Canada (and family and humanitarian reasons too).

But Trump was elected President and he gets to enforce the existing laws. Congress gets to pass many crazy laws, as they have since the founding.

At issue for me is the grandstanding of the sanctuary cities. Naturally our capital Boston is one of the leaders, and the result may be a cut off in funding. It may be good for the mayor's career, and he may feel good for himself, but ultimately without cash the state will have to bail him out. And they can't print cash the way the Feds do. So I have to pay for false courage and morality.

In general I think immigration has been a huge positive in this country, especially 2nd generation which has a remarkable success rate in entrepreneurship, science, medicine, business, etc. We do have to ask the question: "how much legal immigration do we want and under what criteria.

Conservatives will say that without control of the borders that you can't do this. And to a point that's right. Except that Republicans and some Democrats have for years fought tough regulation on employment law that would have enforced immigration law at the employer level . Illegal immigrants do not take jobs, They are given jobs. You may have signs at the border saying keep out, but 10 metres in the signs say "help wanted".

So the question is not the ideal, as Rayjay expresses, and which I think most will agree is the goal.The question is how does the nation resolve the current situation? Some 11 million illegal immigrants are currently in the US, MOST working gainfully and living lives as model citizens. AND much of the US economy depends on the labor of these 11 million. A just solution will provide a way for illegals with record of employment and roots in the community with a way to legalize their position. A just solution will ensure that employers that rely on many illegals will not find themselves wanting for labor. A just solution will not spend inordinate amounts of tax money enforcing laws in a draconian fashion that ends up harming good people living good lives, or companies providing goods and services and employment.

bbauska

I do know that every person who is not documented and a resident is illegal, and should not be allowed in the US because of criminality.

If you could magically enforce the law so that every illegal of the 11 millions was evicted, what kind of damage do you think would occur?With families ?With employers?With the community?Have you considered all these costs? For what benefit?

If the cost of enforcing a law out weights the benefits it provides ..... maybe there has to be a better way?

freeman3 wrote:The question I have is where is the proof that illegal immigration at current levels has a net negative affect on our economy and country as a whole?If you don't KNOW the answer to that question then why be so concerned about it or feel the need to build a wall or more intensively deport people?

Here's one thing we know: the law of supply and demand. If there is more supply of unskilled labor than there is demand for it, then the "price" (wages) will be suppressed, right?

It's difficult to see how more unskilled labor can be "good" for those at the lower rungs of our economy.

In general I think immigration has been a huge positive in this country, especially 2nd generation which has a remarkable success rate in entrepreneurship, science, medicine, business, etc. We do have to ask the question: "how much legal immigration do we want and under what criteria.

Conservatives will say that without control of the borders that you can't do this. And to a point that's right.

No, not "to a point." It is absolutely correct. No control of the borders means no control of illegal immigration.

Except that Republicans and some Democrats have for years fought tough regulation on employment law that would have enforced immigration law at the employer level .

Why would that be? For Republicans, it's clear: businesses want cheap labor and the Republican party is the party of business. But, why would Democrats fight laws designed to "(enforce) immigration law at the employer level?"

Illegal immigrants do not take jobs, They are given jobs. You may have signs at the border saying keep out, but 10 metres in the signs say "help wanted".

What in the world is this supposed to mean?

"Help wanted" is the same as "Job available." When an illegal immigrant answers a "help wanted" sign he/she is "(taking) a job."

Now, if you mean to say, "They take jobs Americans won't" that is another argument than you are making.

However, working illegal aliens are "taking jobs." Otherwise, they are non-working illegal aliens.

So the question is not the ideal, as Rayjay expresses, and which I think most will agree is the goal.The question is how does the nation resolve the current situation? Some 11 million illegal immigrants are currently in the US, MOST working gainfully and living lives as model citizens.

1. We don't know exactly how many illegal immigrants there are. We only have estimates. They may be 2x what you guess.2. If legalized, they will be able to bring in millions more (relatives).3. "Most" would be a number between 5.5 million and 11 million (your estimate). That leaves a lot who may not be "working gainfully" nor "model citizens."

AND much of the US economy depends on the labor of these 11 million.

That doesn't mean we have to legalize them nor grant them citizenship. It does mean we should have a sane solution for the problem.

However, a "comprehensive solution" (as liberals clamor for) is crap. It won't happen. It hasn't happened for the past 20 years and it won't happen because liberals always want legalization first and a real solution down the road. In other words, they want legalization without any kind of law enforcement solution no matter what they say (hint: that's pretty obvious as we look at the lawlessness they embrace and call "sanctuary" cities, counties and states.)

A just solution will provide a way for illegals with record of employment and roots in the community with a way to legalize their position. A just solution will ensure that employers that rely on many illegals will not find themselves wanting for labor. A just solution will not spend inordinate amounts of tax money enforcing laws in a draconian fashion that ends up harming good people living good lives, or companies providing goods and services and employment.

It has to be done in an orderly fashion.

Honestly, if Democrats weren't being such morons, they'd get what they want from Trump. In spite of his "rapist" rhetoric, he's a businessman. He'd do exactly what Democrats want as soon as a system was in place to control immigration.

It's not hard. Go after employers AND require tamper-proof ID to work.

Problem solved. You're welcome.

If you could magically enforce the law so that every illegal of the 11 millions was evicted, what kind of damage do you think would occur?With families ?With employers?With the community?Have you considered all these costs? For what benefit?

I don't know of anyone who actually believes this could happen--deporting them all. However, the "consequences" argument is often trotted out and it is complete nonsense. There are consequences for the decisions we make in life. You run a red light and you might get a ticket. You commit a burglary and you might get caught. You invest in a company and you might lose money. That's life. When you decide to break the law and enter another country, there might be consequences too. I find it funny that liberals won't look at Mexico's treatment of illegals in their country. There laws are far more draconian than ours.

And, as I said, I think if we establish control of the border and put labor controls in place, we will then see a "guest worker" program (for seasonal agriculture) and other increases in legal immigration, plus the legalization of many current illegals. But, it's going to have to be accomplished in an ORDERLY fashion, not a COMPREHENSIVE fashion.

Here's why: we don't trust government to solve the border problem because, as you said, R's and D's have not done it. They've never really come close. When they did, it was a Democratic plan that would have required people to trust the Feds to enforce the law, which we do not--and for good reason.

To all, It is a two pronged approach that is needed. As RickyP states, a help wanted sign 11 yards in from the border gives a double minded view. The signs need to say "help wanted, illegals need not apply".

Do I consider what happens to families in America who are illegally here? Yes. It will be hard on them and there will be some gaps in the economy. The gaps will be filled, and most things that are the right thing to do are difficult.

consider these two people1) An illegal who has been in the US for 25 years, and been gainfully employed for that period of time. No criminal record. A family including 3 children born in the US. His wife is also illegal... and been here just as long...

2) A young man who has been in the US for 3 years, with no record of employment, and no discernible community connections. He cannot explain how he supports himself but he is found with many luxury possessions in his home.

What would deportation accomplish in the first instance? A considerable amount of collateral damage .... in order to deport people who are, in every way but one, model citizens.

Are the two people considered equally punished if both deported?To me the evidence suggests that the goal of immigration, attracting hard working citizens who contribute to society has been achieved with the first person. Not so much with the second. I wouldn't punish the first person. I'd put them in an official que for citizenship papers... The second person. Gone.

There is an old Chinese saying "The only way for justice is to have wise judges".

No, not "to a point." It is absolutely correct. No control of the borders means no control of illegal immigration

That's not true. If illegal immigrants cannot get employment, because employers are scrupulous about ensuring they are hiring legal residents.... the illegal immigrants would leave. They come for the work..... if they aren't given jobs they wouldn't come.

You don't need a water tight border, which could only be achieved at an enormous cost far beyond the rewards, if the companies hiring followed employment regulations that were rigorous about identification.

No, not "to a point." It is absolutely correct. No control of the borders means no control of illegal immigration

That's not true. If illegal immigrants cannot get employment, because employers are scrupulous about ensuring they are hiring legal residents.... the illegal immigrants would leave. They come for the work..... if they aren't given jobs they wouldn't come.

That's the stereotype, but we don't know that--we can't know that. You cannot tell me there are NO illegal aliens who come here and do not work, but just leech. I'm confident some do. Further, there are some who are gang members and crooks. That's not exactly "work" and it's certainly not helpful to our nation.

You don't need a water tight border, which could only be achieved at an enormous cost far beyond the rewards, if the companies hiring followed employment regulations that were rigorous about identification.

Again, only true if no one could obtain government benefits with the same rigorous ID requirements (requirements that apparently DON'T matter for voting, but that's another topic)

So let me get this straight. You are OK with an illegal breaking the law as long as they don't break any other laws.

Do you think the 25 year "model citizen" (other than illegal entry) should be employed in America? The business penalty would force them out of work, would it not? What then? Do they not have an ability to work, but they have an ability to receive government benefits? If they cannot work, but stay, you are placing them in a state of American poverty.

The U.S. civilian workforce included 8 million unauthorized immigrants in 2014, accounting for 5% of those who were working or were unemployed and looking for work, according to new Pew Research Center estimates. The number was unchanged from 2009 and down slightly from 8.2 million in 2007. The share of unauthorized immigrants in the civilian labor force was down slightly from 2009 (5.2%) and 2007 (5.4%). Compared with their 5% share of the civilian workforce overall, unauthorized immigrants are overrepresented in farming occupations (26%) and construction occupations (15%). In all industries and occupations, though, they are outnumbered by U.S.-born workers.

You cannot tell me there are NO illegal aliens who come here and do not work, but just leech. I'm confident some do

Then you should find evidence for this somewhere. Can you?However, I'm only supportive of legalizing illegal immigrants who can prove a track record of honest employment and good behaviour. I'll support efforts to throw out the criminals.

fate

Again, only true if no one could obtain government benefits with the same rigorous ID requirements

So let me get this straight. You are OK with an illegal breaking the law as long as they don't break any other laws.

There are statutes of limitations on all kinds of laws. There are plenty of examples of prosecutorial discretion. Enforcement discretion. Why? Because sometimes applying the law rigidly isn't justice.

So yeah, for people who've been model citizens in every other way...

Do you think the 25 year "model citizen" (other than illegal entry) should be employed in America?

If they are here for 25 years, they are almost certainly employed already. And their employer has helped make that happen, more than likely. bbauska

The business penalty would force them out of work, would it not? What then?

I think the penalty shouldn't be debilitating to a business. That would be counter productive. But it should recognize that the employer was an enabler of a criminal act.

Do they not have an ability to work, but they have an ability to receive government benefits? If they cannot work, but stay, you are placing them in a state of American poverty

Again, if they are here, employed, or even here and employing others as business owner as many are .... they aren't getting benefits. The myth that illegals are receiving government benefits is belied by facts. Pew says there are 11.1 illegal immigrants and of them 8 million working. Only 5% are "unemployed, so the rest are children or other dependents (wives). Find me evidence that there's a huge colony of illegals and benefits... Or read this. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... n-the-u-s/

There are at least three industries that need the illegal immigrants they have to meet their needs. Agricultural, meat packing and construction. Restaurants may also suffer... A resolution that allowed illegals to keep working and work towards citizenship would ensure these industries aren't damaged. Bbauska you couldn't take 3.5% of the working population out of the work force without creating enormous problems. Especially because that 3.5% is unevenly distributed.

The U.S. civilian workforce included 8 million unauthorized immigrants in 2014, accounting for 5% of those who were working or were unemployed and looking for work, according to new Pew Research Center estimates. The number was unchanged from 2009 and down slightly from 8.2 million in 2007. The share of unauthorized immigrants in the civilian labor force was down slightly from 2009 (5.2%) and 2007 (5.4%). Compared with their 5% share of the civilian workforce overall, unauthorized immigrants are overrepresented in farming occupations (26%) and construction occupations (15%). In all industries and occupations, though, they are outnumbered by U.S.-born workers.

That's only valuable IF there are 11 million illegals in the US. Even so, you'd have 70-75% of them working. Great. The total number is derived by guesswork. Part of being "lllegal" is being "in the shadows." The truth is there could be 20 million. Anyone who gives an exact number is guessing.

We do know many of them don't pay taxes. We know many of them obtain fake IDs and commit Social Security fraud of one kind or another.

fate

You cannot tell me there are NO illegal aliens who come here and do not work, but just leech. I'm confident some do

Then you should find evidence for this somewhere. Can you?

Sure. Your own numbers (above) would tell us 3 million-plus do not work.

However, I'm only supportive of legalizing illegal immigrants who can prove a track record of honest employment and good behaviour. I'll support efforts to throw out the criminals.

Well then, you have more sense than Democrats in California and other States.

fate

Again, only true if no one could obtain government benefits with the same rigorous ID requirements

A federal judge Monday sentenced a local woman to a year in jail and ordered her to forfeit $3.5 million and pay restitution in what lawyers said was the largest food stamp fraud case in Massachusetts history.

Vida Ofori Causey, 46, owner of J&W Aseda Plaza at 753 Main St., pleaded guilty in December to charges of conspiracy to commit Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits fraud, SNAP fraud, and money laundering in a $3.6 million cash-for-benefits scheme.

The scheme involved buying food stamps for 50 cents on the dollar while charging the government the full value of the benefit. In a four-year period, Mrs. Causey rang through more than $3.6 million worth of benefits from a three-aisle convenience store in Main South.

. . .

Merchants applying to participate in the SNAP program must estimate the amount of benefits they will redeem, and Ms. Dineen Jerrett told the court that J&W Aseda recorded SNAP sales 366 percent higher than estimated in its first few months of operation, from December 2009 to April 2010. In subsequent years, SNAP redemptions were more than 2,000 percent higher than Mrs. Causey estimated on her original application, including more than 22,000 questionable transactions.

No. Here's how Pew gets their estimates. And how the US Census gets them Far from guesswork.. The link gets much more specific...than this summary

The methods have been refined and tinkered with as we’ve learned more and as we’ve gotten more and better data. But the basic method is the same: We make an estimate of how many immigrants are in the country legally. A census or a national survey gives us a measure of how many immigrants (lawful and unauthorized combined) are living in the U.S. Then, we subtract the lawful immigrants from the total.Basically, then, our estimate of unauthorized immigrants is the total number of immigrants living in the country minus the number of immigrants living here as lawful residents. In concept, it’s a very simple relationship. There’s a lot that goes into producing the final estimate, but the basic estimate is just this difference

Sure. Your own numbers (above) would tell us 3 million-plus do not work

.

Being children.

Fate

There's more fraud in SNAP than in employment. This is a good one:

\You have one anecdote, of someone who was caught and convicted and made restitution...And this one example is supposed to prove your point that food stamp fraud is greater than fraudulent employment which is estimated to be 11 million... While at the same time you want to push the notion the real number of illegals working is more like 20 million?

No. Here's how Pew gets their estimates. And how the US Census gets them Far from guesswork.. The link gets much more specific...than this summary

The methods have been refined and tinkered with as we’ve learned more and as we’ve gotten more and better data. But the basic method is the same: We make an estimate of how many immigrants are in the country legally. A census or a national survey gives us a measure of how many immigrants (lawful and unauthorized combined) are living in the U.S. Then, we subtract the lawful immigrants from the total.Basically, then, our estimate of unauthorized immigrants is the total number of immigrants living in the country minus the number of immigrants living here as lawful residents. In concept, it’s a very simple relationship. There’s a lot that goes into producing the final estimate, but the basic estimate is just this difference

.

Because "estimate" sounds SO much better than "guesswork."

Even so, if today Congress passed a bill legalizing all illegals and Trump signed it tomorrow, would there only be 11 million?

So, the "solution" to the Social Security crisis would be to bring LOTS of illegals in.

fate

Sure. Your own numbers (above) would tell us 3 million-plus do not work

.

Being children.

Nah. No way. You're making that up. From what I've seen, immigrants have many more children than native-born Americans. So, 1 child for every 2.6 adults? Not a chance.

Fate

There's more fraud in SNAP than in employment. This is a good one:

\You have one anecdote, of someone who was caught and convicted and made restitution...And this one example is supposed to prove your point that food stamp fraud is greater than fraudulent employment which is estimated to be 11 million... While at the same time you want to push the notion the real number of illegals working is more like 20 million?

No. I was merely showing how easy it is to commit SNAP fraud.

Oh, and foolio: they convicted one person, but thousands had to sell their cards at half-price for her to have made so much money.